We have been in conversation about this bill with some of the most knowledgeable Second Amendment attorneys and 2A experts in the nation. In their opinion this is one of, if not the best bills of its kind.

We started out with HB772 Lethal Violence Order of Protection which was an outrageous gun grab bill. We all fought with everything we had to defeat that version and then went on to fight to amend this version. At times it felt like a knockdown, drag out fight in the ring, at other times it was more like peace negotiations in the middle east - never easy. Nonetheless, we were able to change this monstrosity around and now the experts are telling us this bill is now more of an Emergency Intervention bill that addresses more of the real problems of mentally ill who are a danger, domestic abusers who are a danger, and those threatening terrorist acts. This bill could possibly set a new standard by which these emergency situations can be deescalated and lives saved, referring to the Waffle House, Parkland High School, and the like.

The attorneys seem to think the bill meets due process and constitutional muster because the order is not final until the firearm owner has their day in court, which must happen quickly.

What makes this bill exceptional compared to the gun grab bills:

1. The requirement for clear and convincing evidence is a high bar to provide and is one of the highest standards in the country.

2. The order is not final until the person has their day in court and that must happen within 14 days. This could even happen as early as that day or the next.

3. Ownership is not prohibited and the firearms can be transferred to someone the person trusts for safekeeping.

4. Property is returned without need to petition the court.

5. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a mental illness, the judge can issue an order for a mental health evaluation.

6. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a criminal act/terrorism, charges can be filed and an arrest warrant can be issued at the same time.

7. In the meantime, the firearms are removed from the scene and taken into safe keeping until the orders are dismissed or expire.

8. FOID/CCL could be suspended instead of revoked (if there are no additional circumstances that would make the person ineligible for a FOID/CCL). These would then be reinstated when the order is dismissed or expires. If you have been following the nightmare we have with FOID/CCL appeals, you know this is a HUGE win.

9. The penalty for false testimony is a felony and is another deterrent for abusing the process.

There are a few tweaks we would like to see and the sponsors have agreed to a trailer bill. We know trailer bills do not always happen but the major issues we fought for are in this bill. It's better than Indiana, better even than Florida's, in my opinion.

Where we are now - If the Gov. signs the bill as is, with the current promise for a trailer bill from the sponsors, we get a reasonable Emergency Intervention bill now with the little fixes to come in the new session.

If the Gov. vetoes or amendatory vetoes the bill, the risk is real that the whole bill will be lost and we lose all the hard work we put into getting amendments in this bill and would have to start over. In the meantime, heaven forbid if there is another killing (or worse, one in IL) - the hysteria would then drive the legislative language and it would be impossible to hold it back. If that happens, most legislators will be afraid to not support a bad bill for fear of appearing uncaring to the victims and their families.

I think most of us are very concerned about abuse of the process because we've seen what happens with regular orders of protection. In the next legislative session, I would like to see us take that issue on and increase the level of evidence for an OP to match this bill's requirement for clear and convincing evidence before an order of protection can be issued.

Unlike most all proposed bills we see, this one actually addresses an issue that needs to be addressed. During the many years my husband and I were terrorized by a mentally ill family member, had this been law, it would have been a great help to us. We can identify with potential victims and we see the real world need for an emergency intervention bill like this.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

HB2354 was sent to the governor on 6/28. Previously IllinoisCarry's position on this bill was neutral with the adopted amendments.It sounds like we should call Rauner and urge him to sign it. It's too late for Friday now. Monday should be good enough, I suppose.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

Is "returned" clearly defined, as in a timeline within the law? Otherwise expect Dart to never return anything without a lawsuit.

if the guns can be placed with someone the owner trusts, I would assume upon the expiration or dismissal of the petition or temporary order, the trustee would merely transfer the Firearms back to the owner.

One of the sponsors of this bill is my representative, Rep. Steven Reick. In contrast to the ILGA reps in my old hometown, Rep. Reick has consistently supported the 2nd Amendment and has consistently voted "no" on the dozens of bad bills which have come up this year. That Reick not only supports but is a sponsor of this bill suggests that it's probably a pretty good one.

Once you get into that situation...you are 'in the system'...and its money, money and more money to PROVE yourself innocent....

No, they can't "take your guns away anyway". They can revoke your FOID and send you a form letter saying you have 48 hrs. to transfer firearms and ammunition over to local law enforcement along with an inventory of said firearms. It becomes illegal for you to be in possession but no action taken to remove the firearms.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

Thanks for all the hard work you do. But its still guilty until proven innocent based on nothing more than hearsay. Its a bad law anyway you look at it.

And in this state its no doubt it will be abused and used against otherwise unsuspecting gun owners.

But I'm guessing this is gonna be the first of many anti gun bills that will be shoved down our throats over the next year. So lets get on with it.

No, it is not hearsay. It must be clear and convincing evidence, this is a high bar. In my situation, I had the letters, the phone messages, and family and neighbors as witnesses. The answer back then was, "we can't do anything because he hasn't hurt anyone yet".

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

Thanks for all the hard work you do. But its still guilty until proven innocent based on nothing more than hearsay. Its a bad law anyway you look at it.

And in this state its no doubt it will be abused and used against otherwise unsuspecting gun owners.

But I'm guessing this is gonna be the first of many anti gun bills that will be shoved down our throats over the next year. So lets get on with it.

No, it is not hearsay. It must be clear and convincing evidence, this is a high bar. In my situation, I had the letters, the phone messages, and family and neighbors as witnesses. The answer back then was, "we can't do anything because he hasn't hurt anyone yet".

Whats the definition of clear and convincing evidence ? And is that evidence taken into account before you lose your rights, or up to 14 days after the men with guns come into your home and take those rights away from you ? Are people really gonna be charged with a felony for calling someone in mistakenly ? Or is it gonna be a case of "better safe than sorry" in the eyes of the system.

Edited by mic6010, 13 July 2018 - 06:36 PM.

"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night." - John Hendricks.

No, it is not hearsay. It must be clear and convincing evidence, this is a high bar. In my situation, I had the letters, the phone messages, and family and neighbors as witnesses. The answer back then was, "we can't do anything because he hasn't hurt anyone yet".

Whats the definition of clear and convincing evidence ? And is that evidence taken into account before you lose your rights, or up to 14 days after the men with guns come into your home and take those rights away from you ? Are people really gonna be charged with a felony for calling someone in mistakenly ? Or is it gonna be a case of "better safe than sorry" in the eyes of the system.

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial (or petition in this case) must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact (i.e., the judge) must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality.

Clear and convincing evidence is the burden of proof that has to be met as a condition of the original order, i.e., before it's even issued.

Whether anyone is ever charged for a crime they committed is always at the discretion of the prosecutor. The intent of the felony charge for false reporting is more about making false reporters accountable for malice rather than mistakes, whatever you mean by mistakes. ("When he said he was going to kill them all, I thought he meant schoolchildren, not the mice in his barn." ???) In any case, the anonymous tip line is gone, gone, gone.

Edited by Euler, 13 July 2018 - 07:15 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

No, it is not hearsay. It must be clear and convincing evidence, this is a high bar. In my situation, I had the letters, the phone messages, and family and neighbors as witnesses. The answer back then was, "we can't do anything because he hasn't hurt anyone yet".

Whats the definition of clear and convincing evidence ? And is that evidence taken into account before you lose your rights, or up to 14 days after the men with guns come into your home and take those rights away from you ? Are people really gonna be charged with a felony for calling someone in mistakenly ? Or is it gonna be a case of "better safe than sorry" in the eyes of the system.

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial (or petition in this case) must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact (i.e., the judge) must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality.

Clear and convincing evidence is the burden of proof that has to be met as a condition of the original order, i.e., before it's even issued.

Whether anyone is ever charged for a crime they committed is always at the discretion of the prosecutor. The intent of the felony charge for false reporting is more about making false reporters accountable for malice rather than mistakes, whatever you mean by mistakes. ("When he said he was going to kill them all, I thought he meant schoolchildren, not the mice in his barn." ???) In any case, the anonymous tip line is gone, gone, gone.

Thanks for answering my questions.

"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night." - John Hendricks.

If someone is apparently so immediately dangerous that you need to take away their constitutional rights, why are they not in a jail or a hospital?
Why is there this middle ground?

People aren't criminal until after they commit crimes.
Not all people who intend violent crimes are insane.

That makes perfectly logical sense.

Now explain to me how If people aren't insane, and aren't criminals why their rights should be taken away? Explain to me how someone that is considered a "clear and present danger" shouldn't be in jail. Shouldn't we be extending criminal and mental illness definitions to include and take care of these people rather than to create these carve outs? Rather than to leave them on the streets? So you ATTEMPT to take away their access to firearms. What does that really solve?

Until someone becomes a criminal or has been labeled mentally insane their rights should not be taken away. If they make threats, show threatening behavior, or look like they might do something then they should be arrested and charged for a crime. If no crime exists for this then isn't creating that the way forward? So you ban these people from owning firearms, they are still free in society. Again, if they are really so dangerous we don't want that do we?

Now explain to me how If people aren't insane, and aren't criminals why their rights should be taken away? Explain to me how someone that is considered a "clear and present danger" shouldn't be in jail. Shouldn't we be extending criminal and mental illness definitions to include and take care of these people rather than to create these carve outs? Rather than to leave them on the streets? So you ATTEMPT to take away their access to firearms. What does that really solve? They are still free in society, I mean if they were so dangerous surely they shouldn't be?

That is covered in #5 and #6. They wouldn't necessarily be left free in society, this works in conjunction with other options the court has. If the clear and convincing evidence is criminal in nature, a warrant for arrest can be issued at the same time. If there is evidence of mental illness, a court order for mental evaluation can be issued. Temporarily removing the firearms is another tool when evidence shows the person could be a danger to self and/or others.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

If someone is apparently so immediately dangerous that you need to take away their constitutional rights, why are they not in a jail or a hospital?

Why is there this middle ground?

I don't know why you think they wouldn't be either in a hospital or jail. This is not really designed as a stand alone option. This is an extra tool to use in addition to the other options. It would be, in my opinion, a very irresponsible judge to use this as a stand alone action.

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

If someone is apparently so immediately dangerous that you need to take away their constitutional rights, why are they not in a jail or a hospital?
Why is there this middle ground?

I don't know why you think they wouldn't be either in a hospital or jail. This is not really designed as a stand alone option. This is an extra tool to use in addition to the other options. It would be, in my opinion, a very irresponsible judge to use this as a stand alone action.

Purple On : and we KNOW judges are NEVER irresponsible !! How long did it take us in Illinois to get a judge to side WITH us ??

Now explain to me how If people aren't insane, and aren't criminals why their rights should be taken away? Explain to me how someone that is considered a "clear and present danger" shouldn't be in jail. Shouldn't we be extending criminal and mental illness definitions to include and take care of these people rather than to create these carve outs? Rather than to leave them on the streets? So you ATTEMPT to take away their access to firearms. What does that really solve? They are still free in society, I mean if they were so dangerous surely they shouldn't be?

That is covered in #5 and #6. They wouldn't necessarily be left free in society, this works in conjunction with other options the court has. If the clear and convincing evidence is criminal in nature, a warrant for arrest can be issued at the same time. If there is evidence of mental illness, a court order for mental evaluation can be issued. Temporarily removing the firearms is another tool when evidence shows the person could be a danger to self and/or others.

First, this discussion isn't to discount or discredit the work you have put into this bill. I see the care you have put behind it and I honestly can't remember the last time what is essentially a gun control bill has ever actually included so much common sense. This is the kind of thinking TRULY needed in Illinois.

~

Second, In what situation would you want to temporarily remove firearms without either

1) A court order for a mental evaluation

2) An arrest warrant

I feel like both of these cover everything. If someone is a criminal then issue an arrest warrant. If someone is crazy, issue a mental evaluation. Outside of that everything that a "suspect" has committed is a thought crime. Where exactly does this "new tool" fall into place between these two other options and why should we give our judges that already do such an amazing job keeping us safe additional tools?